Al-Zaghari v. Probate Court of the State of California et al

Filing 4

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/12/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 8 EVA AL-ZAGHARI, No. C 11-80285 MISC RS 9 Petitioner, For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 11 12 PROBATE COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 13 14 Respondents. ____________________________________/ 15 16 By order of August 15, 2001, in Ali Al-Zaghari, et al. v. Reja Al-Zaghari, et al., No. C 01- 17 2870, this Court designated petitioner a vexatious litigation. Petitioner is thus required to obtain 18 leave of court before filing a new complaint. The order states petitioner may not file any complaint, 19 petition, or other papers related to the mistreatment of herself, her daughter, or her mother by state 20 officials. Despite this order, petitioner has since attempted to file numerous related actions in this 21 court, including the most recent petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging government officials 22 mistreated herself and her family members. The Court conducted a pre-filing review of petitioner’s 23 writ and determined she had not met her burden of asserting cognizable legal claims or establishing 24 that she is in fact currently in custody for purposes of asserting a habeas claim. Petitioner now seeks 25 relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 60. 26 A motion for relief from judgment brought pursuant to FRCP 60(b) is an extraordinary form 27 of relief which may only be granted upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” Engleson v. 28 Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994). This remedy is to be used sparingly “to NO. C ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 prevent manifest injustice.” Lehman v. United States, 154 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). Under FRCP 60(b), a court may grant such a remedy if the movant demonstrates, among other things: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial; or (3) misconduct by the opposing party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Here, petitioner has failed to demonstrate mistake, present new evidence, or establish misconduct by respondents. In fact, her motion largely repeats the facts and allegations of her previous filings. Accordingly, her motion for relief from judgment is denied. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: 6/12/12 14 15 16 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NO. C ORDER 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?